In order to understand Inamgate—a corruption scandal involving Supreme Court justices and high-ranking government officials that came to light after the arrest of Inam Sapkota, an influence peddler—and the collusion between Nepal’s political parties and the judiciary, we need to know its genesis.
The popular movement of 1990, a watershed in Nepal’s political history, lifted the ban on political parties and restored democracy. Political parties flourished. People celebrated victory. But they seemed unaware of the pros and cons of the proliferation of political parties and the emergence of hundreds of leaders.
During the 1991 general election, there were 44 registered political parties, 20 of which contested the election. By 2026, the number of registered political parties had increased to 135. Besides, there are many unregistered political outfits. Experience has shown that improved governance, social justice, and economic development were not priorities for these parties.
All constitutions adopted since 1990 contain provisions that can lead to hung parliaments. And fractured parliaments have given birth to a short-lived coalition government (un)culture. There have been 30 governments in 36 years. Coalition governments have become breeding grounds for numerous small political parties. Toppling governments for personal gains has become endemic in Nepali politics.
All political parties to date have resorted to illegitimate means to form governments. Horse-trading has become an established malpractice. The formation of coalition governments has aggravated and perpetuated corruption at the highest levels. Irrespective of their strength in parliament, parties have taken undue advantage of ministerial berths for personal gains.
In order to gain control over the entire state machinery, political parties started appointing their cadres, loyalists, and fixers to all state agencies, including the judiciary. Nepal’s judiciary, considered competent and independent during the Panchayat regime, became a recruitment center after 1990. Its downward journey began from then on.
The judiciary has been so heavily influenced that justices, from district courts to the Supreme Court, are appointed based on the ruling parties’ quotas. The practice has been so blatant that some newly appointed justices have visited political party offices to thank those who appointed them. A former parliamentarian from a major political party is now the most senior justice at the Supreme Court.
Traditional political parties have appointed retired, corrupt, and incompetent government officials and party loyalists to positions in most institutions, from universities to the judiciary and the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA). Such appointments have shielded political leaders from being convicted on corruption charges.
The Special Court handles corruption cases, mostly filed by the CIAA. But in many glaring cases involving senior political leaders, the Special Court has acquitted them. Justices at the Special Court, too, are handpicked by ruling parties. It is natural for unscrupulous justices to favor their godfathers. In Nepal, although it is not a standard English word, the term ‘setting’ is used to denote corrupt activities carried out in collusion with stakeholders.
Cases
One of the most glaring examples of widely perceived collusion between the judiciary and political parties is the reduction in the tax liability calculated by the Large Taxpayers’ Office (LTO) for Ncell, a joint-venture telecom operator. On April 16, 2019, the LTO fixed the combined tax liability, including capital gains tax, interest, and late fees, at Rs 62.63 billion. After deducting the deposit of Rs 23.57 billion, Ncell was required to pay Rs 39.06 billion.
However, on August 26, 2019, a full bench of the Supreme Court comprising justices Tej Bahadur KC, Purushottam Bhandari, Dambar Bahadur Shahi, Sushmalata Mathema, and Manoj Kumar Sharma—the incumbent chief justice (CJ)—ruled that Ncell should pay a total tax of Rs 21.10 billion, causing a loss of Rs 17.95 billion to the nation. The public perceived that Rs 17.95 billion had been divided among the justices and major political parties.
Back to Inamgate. An audio recording of a conversation between a Supreme Court justice and Inam Sapkota suggests that the Supreme Court released businessman Rohit Gupta on bail of Rs 20 million. Inam refers to the prime minister’s (PM’s) ‘concern’ about the case. The justice has admitted meeting Sapkota at a hotel in Lalitpur but denied any involvement in the case.
Inam, in a disputed audio recording described as an ‘interrogation,’ has named the PM, the inspector general of police, the additional inspector general of police, the CJ, a Supreme Court justice, a former president of the Nepali Congress and his wife, a former chief justice, and the president of the Nepali Congress (NC), among others. He has also said that the money he used belonged to former CJ Cholendra Shumsher Rana.
An independent digital forensic examination is yet to establish the authenticity of the audio, but it has given a new twist to the scandal. Inam has reportedly said that the Gagan Thapa faction of the NC, which held a special general convention before the March 2025 midterm elections to the House of Representatives, had bribed the Supreme Court with Rs 180 million to legitimize Thapa’s faction.
The allegation against Thapa has not been substantiated. But it has gone viral on social media, and people have already pointed fingers at Thapa and his allies without ascertaining the truth. Meanwhile, Thapa on November 3 called on CPN-UML chair KP Sharma Oli at his residence in Bhaktapur, reportedly to discuss the fate of the Madhesh provincial government after the CPN (Maoist Center) withdrew its support.
However, given Thapa’s public aversion to Oli following the September 2025 Gen Z movement, he had refrained from meeting him. Hence, the meeting has been interpreted as an attempt to seek unity in the face of adversity. A Facebook status posted by Prime Minister Balendra Shah following Inam’s arrest has also been construed as targeting Gagan Thapa. In the post, Shah warned that no one could escape when bad times arrived at the right time.
The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), a new political force, has followed in the footsteps of traditional parties—the NC, CPN-UML, and Maoist Center. Catapulted to power on the rhetoric of reducing corruption and nepotism, ending leadership recycling and political instability, reforming governance, and ensuring meaningful representation of young people at every decision-making level, the RSP is not faring any better.
PM Shah was strongly opposed to appointing political party loyalists to the judiciary. But Shah himself appointed Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma as the CJ, disregarding seniority among eligible candidates. Sharma was fourth in the seniority list, while Sapana Pradhan Malla was the most senior. Shah wanted to prevent Malla from becoming CJ because she is a former parliamentarian from the CPN-UML and had been appointed by the Oli government.
Taking a U-turn, Shah not only flouted the convention of appointing the most senior justice as CJ but also continued the collusion between the judiciary and political parties, acting against the spirit of the Gen Z movement, which called for an end to nepotism, favoritism, lawlessness, and embezzlement. There is no guarantee that the new CJ will not act at the behest of his godfather.
Collusion between the RSP and the judiciary has also come to light. Some judges in district and appellate courts had reversed previous decisions or rulings made by lower courts. They not only released Rabi Lamichhane, president of the RSP, on bail but also annulled the money-laundering charge against him. These judges have now been rewarded with promotions and appointments to higher positions. Hence, collusion between the ruling party and the judiciary continues unabated.
Consequences
Collusion between political parties and the judiciary has dire consequences, particularly for people who have no access to power. They can hardly expect justice from the courts, which are the custodians of the Constitution and the ultimate institutions to turn to when all other avenues fail. Such collusion is a betrayal of ordinary people.
It not only erodes public trust in the legal system but also encourages disrespect for it. When the judiciary loses public trust, justice dies silently at the hands of unscrupulous judges. Even in war-torn or conflict-ridden countries, the judiciary remains the last resort.
Collusion leaves both parties involved exposed and discredited. In Nepal, owing to the imprudence, incompetence, nepotism, favoritism, corruption, delays, and lack of ethics among political leaders, people have become frustrated with the political system itself, which is deeply unfortunate. The continuation of such collusion will trigger a series of movements and frequent changes of government, resulting in political instability.
There is a widespread misconception among judges, justices, and aspiring justices that the judiciary is above the Constitution. They cannot tolerate healthy criticism from the press. They take action against journalists and news agencies for reporting on mismanagement or corruption in the courts. Such institutionalized impunity leads to disgrace and degeneration.
Collusion turns the judiciary into a rubber stamp for the ruling party or parties, ultimately undermining the system of checks and balances and leaving ordinary people defenseless. It also gives rise to institutional corruption and allows corrupt practices to flourish at lower levels, with the judiciary functioning as a shield and undermining the rule of law.
In the absence of an independent judiciary, the executive can weaponize the enforcement of the law, suppress dissenting voices, fetter the free press, or restrict the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Collusion also stifles economic development and encourages capital flight.
People fear investing in enterprises because of unpredictable taxation and extortion by those with access to power and the ability to influence the judiciary. This depletes domestic resources and leads to unemployment and inflation. The combined outcome of collusion between the judiciary and political parties is a perfect recipe for a failed state.
